Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Strong coupling and dark modes in the motion of a pair of levitated nanoparticles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two optically trapped nanospheres, coupled by light scattered into a shared cavity, reach strong coupling and form a dark mode at the bare-frequency crossing.

desk verdict Solid experimental advance in levitated optomechanics: the strong-coupling claim is well supported, but the dark-mode evidence is visual and should be quantified before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08563 v1 pith:25VAY45A submitted 2025-02-12 physics.optics

Antonio Pontin , Quentin Deplano , Andrea Ranfagni , Francesco Marino , Francesco Marin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords levitatedoptomechanicscoherentscatteringcavity-mediatedcouplingstrongdarkmodeopticaltweezernanoparticlesspin-1/2dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that two optically levitated nanoparticles, held in separate sites of a two-color optical tweezer and coupled through light scattered into a shared optical cavity, behave like two strongly coupled harmonic oscillators with a tunable interaction. On the experimental side, it reports avoided crossings between pairs of transverse motional modes with splittings of about 1 kHz, well above the mode linewidths, which places the system in the strong-coupling regime. On the conceptual side, it shows that the upper hybrid branch becomes a dark mode exactly when the bare mechanical frequencies cross, even when the two particles couple to the cavity with different strengths. Because the two-mode dynamics maps onto spin-1/2 matrices, the same phenomena that appear in quantum two-level systems—such as bright and dark states, Rabi oscillations, and Ramsey fringes—can be studied in a classical mechanical setting. If the scheme is extended to ground-state cooling, the same cavity-mediated coupling is a plausible route to stationary entanglement between mesoscopic particles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cavity-mediated effective coupling $G_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{g_\alpha g_\beta^*}{\Delta-\omega_\beta-i\kappa/2} + \frac{g_\alpha^* g_\beta}{\Delta+\omega_\beta+i\kappa/2}$, obtained by adiabatically eliminating the cavity in the weak-coupling, resolved-sideband limit. When the two mechanical frequencies coincide, the magnitude $g_{\alpha\beta}=|G_{\alpha\beta}|$ acts as a direct mechanical coupling between mode $\alpha$ of one particle and mode $\beta$ of the other, giving a normal-mode splitting $\delta_{\alpha\beta}=2g_{\alpha\beta}$. The dark-mode behaviour follows from the eigenvalues of the dynamical matrix $D$, which is the sum of the diagonal mechanical frequency matrix and the effective coupling matrix $G$: for two modes with equal bare frequency and a conservative interaction, the upper eigenvalue is exactly $\omega_0$, the corresponding eigenvector has zero overlap with the cavity field, so it neither shifts nor broadens—this is the dark mode. The authors also use a spin-1/2 matrix description, in which the bright/dark superpositions of the two mechanical modes are the classical analogues of symmetric/antisymmetric states in coupled quantum two-level systems.

What would settle it

Push the experiment beyond the weak-coupling limit by raising the 1064 nm trapping power or lowering the cavity detuning until the single-particle coupling is no longer small compared with the cavity linewidth; if the avoided-crossing splitting stops equaling $2g_{\alpha\beta}$, or if the upper branch no longer decouples at the bare-frequency crossing, the simplified cavity-elimination model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two silica nanospheres (nominal diameter 125 nm) are trapped $9\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ apart in a bichromatic tweezer, with the 1064 nm trap actively coupled to a high-finesse cavity by coherent scattering and the 976 nm trap used only to hold and tune the second particle. By varying the 976 nm trap power, the authors sweep the second particle's transverse eigenfrequencies through those of the first and observe three clear avoided crossings (with a fourth just outside the scan range), from which they extract effective direct couplings $(g_{x1,x2}, g_{y1,x2}, g_{x1,y2})/2\pi = (0.61, 0.60, 0.51)$ kHz and normal-mode splittings of about 1.2, 1.2, and 1.0 kHz. Taking the largest measured optomechanical linewidth, $109\pm20$ Hz, as an upper bound, every crossing satisfies the strong-coupling condition $g > (\gamma_1+\gamma_2)/4$. In the spectrograms, the upper branch of each avoided crossing visibly dims when the bare frequencies are degenerate, not when the dressed frequencies are closest: in the model this is the signature of a dark mode, which for a purely conservative interaction (the experimental phase $\varphi=(172\pm3)^\circ$, close to $\pi$) decouples completely from the cavity at $\delta\omega=0$ regardless of the coupling imbalance $\zeta$. The full eigenfrequency model, which includes the Coulomb interaction between the charged particles and a small tilt of the cavity axis, reproduces the measured splittings with fitted parameters $\zeta=0.35\pm0.015$, $\varphi=(172\pm3)^\circ$, and a standing-wave phase $\phi_1=1.225\pm0.015$. The dynamics of each mode pair are equivalent to a spin-1/2 system, so the experiment is a classical mechanical simulator of bright/dark-state physics.

Load-bearing premise

The model's central assumption is that the cavity reacts much faster than the particles move and that each particle interacts weakly with the light field, so the cavity can be replaced by a direct particle-particle coupling; if these conditions fail, both the effective coupling strength and the predicted dark-mode position would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the demonstrated coupling, the two mechanical modes form a classical spin-1/2 analogue in which Rabi oscillations and Ramsey fringes should be observable under pulsed or swept excitation.
  • A modest extension of the power scan should reveal the fourth avoided crossing, for the (y1, y2) mode pair, with a predicted splitting near 0.78 kHz, completing the transverse-mode map.
  • Ground-state cooling of both particles should convert the same cavity-mediated coupling into stationary Gaussian entanglement between the nanospheres, the quantum target the authors identify.
  • A widely tunable second-tweezer laser would set the interaction phase and the trap separation, allowing non-reciprocal coupling at a phase near π/2 and stronger dark-mode contrast by controlling the coupling imbalance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The exact vanishing of the dark mode's cavity response at the bare-frequency crossing could be used as a null indicator to lock two mechanical frequencies together or to detect tiny frequency shifts of one particle, a metrological use the authors do not discuss.
  • Extending the chromatic-aberration tweezer to three or more wavelengths might create a chain of cavity-mediated coupled mechanical oscillators whose dark-mode structure is set by the relative phases of the trapping fields.
  • Because the dark mode forms at the bare crossing while the minimum splitting is shifted by the coupling imbalance, experiments reporting avoided-crossing positions should specify which definition they use; reading the dark-mode dimming resolves the ambiguity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment in which two silica nanoparticles are trapped in the two foci of a bichromatic optical tweezer and placed inside a high-finesse cavity. The 1064 nm trap light coherently scatters into the cavity, generating an effective cavity-mediated coupling between transverse motional modes of the two particles. By scanning the power of the 976 nm trap, the authors tune the eigenfrequencies of one particle through those of the other and observe three avoided crossings with splittings around 1 kHz, which they identify with the strong-coupling regime. They also report the emergence of a dark mode on the upper branch of the crossings and support this with an analytical model of the reduced two-mode dynamics. The paper includes a parameter fit of the eigenfrequency splittings, a discussion of Coulomb and optical-binding contributions, and a comparison with an analytical spectrogram.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable experimental step for levitated optomechanics: it demonstrates a scalable way to couple two nanoparticles through a common cavity in the resolved-sideband regime, with coupling rates that exceed the mechanical linewidths and with a clear connection to bright/dark-mode physics in quantum systems. The strength of the paper is that the strong-coupling result is directly visible in the spectrograms and is reproduced quantitatively by a model with only four fitted parameters, whose fitted values are consistent with independent estimates. The analytical derivation of the dark-mode location at the bare-frequency crossing in the Supplementary Material is a useful contribution. The main weakness is that the dark-mode claim, which is one of the two central claims, is supported only by a visual amplitude dip rather than by a quantitative comparison of spectral amplitudes with the model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Discussion' paragraph and Fig. 4] The dark-mode claim is established only qualitatively. The manuscript fits the eigenfrequencies (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Sec. II) but never extracts or compares the power spectral density amplitudes of the branches. A dark mode is an amplitude effect, and the authors themselves state that the expected contrast is partial because the fitted phase is φ = (172±3)°, not π, and because the dark-mode region is narrow compared with the 3.5 mW power-step resolution. To support the 'emergence of dark modes' claim, the authors should provide a quantitative amplitude analysis: for example, integrate the PSD peak of the upper branch at each power, subtract the noise floor, compare the measured contrast with the analytical spectrogram of Fig. 4b computed with the actual fitted parameters (φ = 172°, including the power-dependent Coulomb-induced phase shift), and quantify the predicted versus observed dip. Without this, alternative explanations such as a power-dependent optomechanical coupling g2 or a detection-gain variation are not excluded.
  2. [Main text, 'Model' paragraph, Eq. (1); Supplementary Sec. I] The reduced model used for the dark-mode prediction relies on adiabatically eliminating the cavity in the weak-coupling, resolved-sideband regime, but the manuscript does not quantitatively justify this separation of scales for the experimental parameters. With κ/2π = 57 kHz, mechanical frequencies around 120 kHz, and single-particle couplings g_i/2π ≈ 7–18 kHz, the conditions κ ≫ g_i and κ ≪ ω_i are only marginally satisfied. Since the predicted dark-mode location and the form of G_αβ in Eq. (1) both follow from this reduced model, the authors should either provide a quantitative validity check (for instance, comparing the reduced model with the full cavity-coupled linearized model for the fitted parameters) or state explicitly the range of parameters in which Eq. (1) is expected to hold. This would also strengthen confidence in the dark-mode analysis, which depends on the same approximation.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Supplementary Sec. I.B] The analytical spectrogram in Fig. 4b is computed with φ set to π and without the Coulomb-induced equilibrium shift, while the experimental spectrogram in Fig. 4a is taken at φ ≈ 172° and with a power-dependent φ. A direct visual comparison between the two panels therefore conflates two parameter changes. The authors should compute the theoretical spectrogram with the actual fitted parameters, including the Coulomb phase drift, and show whether the predicted partial dark-mode contrast matches the observed dimming within the experimental noise. If the narrow dark-mode region cannot be resolved at the 3.5 mW step, a dedicated higher-resolution scan around the crossing should be reported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract claims strong coupling 'between each pair of modes in the transverse plane,' but only three of the four transverse pairs are observed within the scan range; the fourth (y1,y2) is extrapolated. The wording should be qualified to say 'the observed pairs' or 'three of the four transverse pairs.'
  2. [Introduction and experimental parameters] The phrase 'resolved sideband regime' is used in the Introduction, but with κ/2π = 57 kHz and mechanical frequencies of about 120 kHz the sideband resolution is only marginal. A brief quantitative justification, or a softer phrasing such as 'near-resolved-sideband regime,' would avoid overstating the regime.
  3. [Fig. 4] The arrows in Fig. 4a point to the dark regions, but the bare-frequency crossing powers are not marked. Adding vertical lines at the crossing powers (e.g., 323 and 289 mW) would let the reader verify that the dimming occurs at the bare crossing and not at the optically shifted crossing.
  4. [Supplementary Sec. II] The fitting procedure is described clearly, but the reported parameter uncertainties appear to be single-fit statistical errors. Since the dark-mode contrast predicted from the model depends on φ, ζ, and ϕ1, it would be useful to propagate the parameter uncertainties to the predicted dip depth.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the strong-coupling and dark-mode claims rest on direct experimental spectra and a parameter-independent analytic derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental and the model is used for interpretation, not as a circular input. The cavity-mediated coupling Gαβ in Eq. (1) is derived in the supplementary material from the optomechanical Hamiltonian by adiabatic elimination, with no definitional dependence on the observed dark mode or avoided crossings. The fitted parameters (ζ, φ, ϕ1, θz) are obtained by least-squares fitting to the measured eigenfrequency splittings (Supplementary Sec. II), while the strong-coupling statement is based directly on the measured splittings δαβ = 2gαβ compared with linewidths. The dark-mode result is derived analytically in Supplementary Sec. I.B, culminating in Eq. (34), where the cavity amplitude is shown to vanish at the bare-frequency crossing for arbitrary ζ; this derivation does not use the measured splittings or the fitted parameters. The analytical spectrogram of Fig. 4b uses fitted parameters, but the predicted dark-mode location is an analytic consequence of the model, not an output of a fit to the experimental amplitude. Self-citations [7, 8, 29] supply background parameters, charge characterization, and measurement methods, but none carries the central derivation. The only notable weakness is that the experimental dark-mode confirmation is qualitative, relying on a visual amplitude dip rather than a quantitative amplitude fit, but this is an evidence-strength concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The central assumptions are the weak-coupling adiabatic elimination, the single-parameter characterization of the second particle's coupling (zeta, phi), and the use of nominal particle parameters from prior work. These are reasonable for an experimental paper but limit the independence of the model.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_z = (0.75 +/- 0.13) degrees
    Deviation from orthogonality between cavity axis and tweezer propagation. Direct measurement gave |theta_z|=(1 +/- 0.5) degrees, too imprecise for the model, so it was varied within uncertainty and fitted.
  • phi_1 = 1.225 +/- 0.015
    Phase position of particle 1 in the cavity standing wave. Fitted because the absolute position along the standing wave is not independently known.
  • zeta = 0.35 +/- 0.015
    Ratio of the 1064 nm field amplitude at the second trap to that at the first. A crude Gaussian estimate gives 0.28 +/- 0.03, and the fitted value agrees within uncertainty.
  • phi = (172 +/- 3) degrees
    Relative phase between the fields at the two traps. Fitted because it depends on the exact particle positions and residual misalignment.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Coherent scattering Hamiltonian H_opt as given in Supplementary Eq. (1), with polarizability and field amplitudes.
    Taken from prior coherent scattering theory [1-5]; the paper builds on this established formalism.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic elimination of the cavity in the weak-coupling limit, yielding effective direct coupling G_alpha,beta of Eq. (1).
    Requires that each particle-cavity coupling is weak and the cavity decay is fast compared with mechanical dynamics. The resolved-sideband regime and the measured linewidths support this, but it is a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The second particle interacts with the cavity only through scattered 1064 nm light, with field amplitude zeta and phase phi; the 976 nm trap does not participate in coherent scattering.
    The cavity is effectively transparent at 976 nm, so this is physically motivated, but the precise form of the second particle's coupling relies on the fitted zeta and phi.
  • domain assumption Identical particle polarizabilities and nominal particle and cavity parameters are taken from previously reported measurements by the same group.
    The supplementary states these are 'nominal' and 'consistent with previously reported measurements by our group [7]'; they are not independently remeasured here.
  • standard math Coulomb coupling between the charged particles is included with measured charges and the steady-state equilibrium shift.
    The Coulomb potential is a standard physical interaction; charges are measured, and the dynamical coupling is estimated at about 120 Hz.
  • domain assumption Optical binding, recoil heating, and trapping-potential overlap are negligible based on the estimates in Supplementary Sec. III.
    The paper estimates optical binding coupling around 1 Hz and small recoil ratios, so these effects are excluded from the central model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong coupling and dark modes in the motion of a pair of levitated nanoparticles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25VAY45A

@misc{pith2026250208563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong coupling and dark modes in the motion of a pair of levitated nanoparticles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25VAY45A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08563}
}
read the original abstract

We experimentally investigate a system composed of two levitating nanospheres whose motions are indirectly coupled via coherent scattering in a single optical cavity mode. The nanospheres are loaded into a double longitudinal tweezer created with two lasers at different wavelengths, where chromatic aberration leads to the formation of two separate trapping sites. We achieve strong coupling between each pair of modes in the transverse plane of the tweezer, as demonstrated by the avoided crossings observed when tuning the eigenfrequencies of the motion of one nanosphere by varying its optical potential depth. Remarkably, we show the emergence of dark modes in the overall coupled motion. The dynamics can be described in terms of spin-1/2 matrices, and the observed features are ubiquitous in a variety of classical and quantum systems. As such, our experiment will allow us to explore the classical analog of typically quantum dynamics, and in further developments to investigate the transition to the quantum domain by lowering the decoherence rate and creating stationary entanglement, as well as implementing non-stationary protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08563 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Overview of the experiment. A bi-chromatic optical tweezer allows to confine nanoparticles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Experimental spectra. a) Heterodyne spectrum of the cavity output normalized to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Measurement of the system eigenfrequencies for the motion in the tweezers transverse plane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Dark mode formation. a) Spectrogram of the Heterodyne PSD as a function of the trapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Analytical 2D maps of the three splittings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Region plot for the individual contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Optical layout. O.I: optic isolator, WP: wave plate, PBS: polarizing beam-splitter, AOM: acousto-optic modulator, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Millen, T

    J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit et al. Optomechanics with levitated particles. Reports on Progress in Physics, 83, 026401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin et al. Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Rev. Mod. Phys., 85, 471 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Magrini, P

    L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach et al. Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature. Nature, 595, 373 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi et al. Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space. Nature, 595, 378 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Kamba, R

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa. Optical cold damping of neutral nanoparticles near the ground state in an optical lattice. Optics Express, 30, 26716 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Deli´ c, M

    U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare et al. Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state. Science, 367, 892 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [8]

    Piotrowski, D

    J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan et al. Simultaneous ground-state cooling of two mechan- ical modes of a levitated nanoparticle. Nature Physics, 19, 1009–1013 (2023). 10

    work page 2023

  8. [9]

    High purity two-dimensional levitated mechanical oscillator

    Q. Deplano, A. Pontin, A. Ranfagni et al. High purity two-dimensional levitated mechanical oscillator (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04863

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [10]

    Monteiro, G

    F. Monteiro, G. Afek, D. Carney et al. Search for composite dark matter with optically levitated sensors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 181102 (2020)

    2020

  2. [11]

    D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci. Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors. Quantum Science and Technology, 6, 014008 (2021)

    2021

  3. [12]

    Kilian, M

    E. Kilian, M. Rademacher, J. M. H. Gosling et al. Dark matter searches with levitated sensors. AVS Quantum Science, 6 (2024)

    2024

  4. [13]

    Arvanitaki and A

    A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci. Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with optically levitated sensors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 071105 (2013)

    2013

  5. [14]

    Aggarwal, G

    N. Aggarwal, G. P. Winstone, M. Teo et al. Searching for new physics with a levitated-sensor- based gravitational-wave detector. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 111101 (2022)

    2022

  6. [15]

    Monteiro, S

    F. Monteiro, S. Ghosh, A. G. Fine et al. Optical levitation of 10-ng spheres with nano- g acceleration sensitivity. Phys. Rev. A , 96, 063841 (2017)

    2017

  7. [16]

    Rademacher, J

    M. Rademacher, J. Millen, and Y. L. Li. Quantum sensing with nanoparticles for gravimetry: when bigger is better. Advanced Optical Technologies, 9, 227–239 (2019)

    2019

  8. [17]

    Ahrens, W

    F. Ahrens, W. Ji, D. Budker et al. Levitated ferromagnetic magnetometer with energy reso- lution well below ¯h (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03774

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Rashid, M

    M. Rashid, M. Toroˇ s, A. Setter et al. Precession motion in levitated optomechanics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 253601 (2018)

    2018

  10. [19]

    J. Bang, T. Seberson, P. Ju et al. Five-dimensional cooling and nonlinear dynamics of an optically levitated nanodumbbell. Phys. Rev. Research, 2, 043054 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    van der Laan, F

    F. van der Laan, F. Tebbenjohanns, R. Reimann et al. Sub-kelvin feedback cooling and heating dynamics of an optically levitated librator. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 123605 (2021)

    2021

  12. [21]

    Pontin, H

    A. Pontin, H. Fu, M. Toroˇ set al. Simultaneous cavity cooling of all six degrees of freedom of a levitated nanoparticle. Nature Physics, 19, 1003–1008 (2023)

    2023

  13. [22]

    J. A. Zieli´ nska, F. van der Laan, A. Norrmanet al. Controlling optomechanical libration with the degree of polarization. Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 203603 (2023)

    2023

  14. [23]

    Arita, G

    Y. Arita, G. D. Bruce, E. M. Wright et al. All-optical sub-kelvin sympathetic cooling of a levitated microsphere in vacuum. Optica, 9, 1000 (2022)

    2022

  15. [24]

    Liˇ ska, T

    V. Liˇ ska, T. Zem´ ankov´ a, V. Svaket al. Cold damping of levitated optically coupled nanopar- 11 ticles. Optica, 10, 1203 (2023)

    2023

  16. [25]

    T. W. Penny, A. Pontin, and P. F. Barker. Sympathetic cooling and squeezing of two colevi- tated nanoparticles. Phys. Rev. Res., 5, 013070 (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    D. S. Bykov, L. Dania, F. Goschin et al. 3d sympathetic cooling and detection of levitated nanoparticles. Optica, 10, 438 (2023)

    2023

  18. [27]

    Vijayan, Z

    J. Vijayan, Z. Zhang, J. Piotrowski et al. Scalable all-optical cold damping of levitated nanoparticles. Nature Nanotechnology, 18, 49–54 (2022)

    2022

  19. [28]

    Rieser, M

    J. Rieser, M. A. Ciampini, H. Rudolph et al. Tunable light-induced dipole-dipole interaction between optically levitated nanoparticles. Science, 377, 987–990 (2022)

    2022

  20. [30]

    A. K. Chauhan, O. ˇCernot´ ık, and R. Filip. Stationary gaussian entanglement between levitated nanoparticles. New Journal of Physics , 22, 123021 (2020)

    2020

  21. [31]

    Brand˜ ao, D

    I. Brand˜ ao, D. Tandeitnik, and G. T. Coherent scattering-mediated correlations between levitated nanospheres. Quantum Science and Technology, 6, 045013 (2021)

    2021

  22. [32]

    Winkler, A

    K. Winkler, A. V. Zasedatelev, B. A. Stickler et al. Steady-state entanglement of interacting masses in free space through optimal feedback control (2024)

    2024

  23. [33]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley et al. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 240401 (2017)

    2017

  24. [34]

    Vijayan, J

    J. Vijayan, J. Piotrowski, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero et al. Cavity-mediated long-range interac- tions in levitated optomechanics. Nature Physics, 20, 859–864 (2024)

    2024

  25. [35]

    Vuleti´ c and S

    V. Vuleti´ c and S. Chu. Laser cooling of atoms, ions, or molecules by coherent scattering. Physical Review Letters, 84, 3787 (2000)

    2000

  26. [39]

    Toroˇ s, U

    M. Toroˇ s, U. Deli´ c, F. Haleset al. Coherent-scattering two-dimensional cooling in levitated cavity optomechanics. Phys. Rev. Research, 3, 023071 (2021). 12

    2021

  27. [40]

    Ranfagni, P

    A. Ranfagni, P. Vezio, M. Calamai et al. Vectorial polaritons in the quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere. Nature Physics, 17, 1120–1124 (2021)

    2021

  28. [41]

    Trebbia, Q

    J.-B. Trebbia, Q. Deplano, P. Tamarat et al. Tailoring the superradiant and subradiant nature of two coherently coupled quantum emitters. Nature Communications, 13, 2962 (2022)

    2022

  29. [42]

    Majer, J

    J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta et al. Coupling superconducting qubits via a cavity bus. Nature, 449, 443–447 (2007)

    2007

  30. [43]

    R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev et al. Photon-mediated interactions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocavity. Science, 362, 662–665 (2018)

    2018

  31. [44]

    Filipp, M

    S. Filipp, M. G¨ oppl, J. M. Finket al. Multimode mediated qubit-qubit coupling and dark-state symmetries in circuit quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. A , 83, 063827 (2011)

    2011

  32. [45]

    de L´ es´ eleuc, D

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhardet al. Optical control of the resonant dipole-dipole interaction between rydberg atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 053202 (2017)

    2017

  33. [47]

    See supplemental material

  34. [48]

    O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori. Simulating quantum dynamical phenomena using classical oscillators: Landau-zener-st¨ uckelberg-majorana interferometry, latching mod- ulation, and motional averaging. Scientific Reports, 8 (2018)

    2018

  35. [49]

    Frimmer and L

    M. Frimmer and L. Novotny. The classical bloch equations. American Journal of Physics, 82, 947–954 (2014)

    2014

  36. [50]

    Rudolph, K

    H. Rudolph, K. Hornberger, and B. A. Stickler. Entangling levitated nanoparticles by coherent scattering. Phys. Rev. A , 101, 011804 (2020). 13 Supplementary Material for: Strong coupling and dark modes in the motion of a pair of levitated nanoparticles A. Pontin,1,∗ Q. Deplan...

    2020 arXiv

  37. [51]

    Given the experimental geometry, we have z0,976 = r12 and z0,1064 =−r12

    the Rayleigh cross section and α = ϵ0χVs is the particle polarizability with Vs the particle volume and χ its susceptibility. Given the experimental geometry, we have z0,976 = r12 and z0,1064 =−r12. These forces have to be compared with those resulting from the main optical po...

  38. [52]

    The scatter power can be written as Psc =σscϵ0c|E0|2/2 where E0 is the field at the trap center

    takes into account the dipole pattern of the scattered light, Ω = (ωx,ωy,ωz) are the different trap frequencies. The scatter power can be written as Psc =σscϵ0c|E0|2/2 where E0 is the field at the trap center. This allows us to directly calculate the recoil Γd at distance d =r...

  39. [53]

    Similarly, for the particle in the 976 nm trap we have Γ2,0 = Λ2Ξ2|E2|2/Ω2 Γ1,d = Λ1Ξ1ζ2|E1|2/Ω2

    and Ξi =ϵ0kiσsc,i. Similarly, for the particle in the 976 nm trap we have Γ2,0 = Λ2Ξ2|E2|2/Ω2 Γ1,d = Λ1Ξ1ζ2|E1|2/Ω2. (43) Thus, using Eqs. 42-43 we can quantify the increase of recoil heating with the ratios Γ2,d Γ1,0 = (1 2, 2, 1 )(k2 k1 )5 ζ2(1 +P0∆P ) Γ1,d Γ2,0 = ( 2, 1 2, ...

  40. [54]

    Vuleti´ c and S

    V. Vuleti´ c and S. Chu. Laser cooling of atoms, ions, or molecules by coherent scattering. Physical Review Letters , 84, 3787 (2000)

    2000

  41. [55]

    Windey, C

    D. Windey, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, P. Maurer et al. Cavity-based 3d cooling of a levitated nanoparticle via coherent scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 123601 (2019)

    2019

  42. [56]

    Deli´ c, M

    U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, D. Grasset al. Cavity cooling of a levitated nanosphere by coherent scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 123602 (2019)

    2019

  43. [57]

    Toroˇ s and T

    M. Toroˇ s and T. S. Monteiro. Quantum sensing and cooling in three-dimensional levitated cavity optomechanics. Phys. Rev. Research, 2, 023228 (2020)

    2020

  44. [58]

    Toroˇ s, U

    M. Toroˇ s, U. Deli´ c, F. Haleset al. Coherent-scattering two-dimensional cooling in levitated cavity optomechanics. Phys. Rev. Research, 3, 023071 (2021)

    2021

  45. [59]

    Vijayan, J

    J. Vijayan, J. Piotrowski, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero et al. Cavity-mediated long-range interactions in levitated optomechanics. Nature Physics, 20, 859–864 (2024)

    2024

  46. [60]

    Ranfagni, K

    A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino et al. Two-dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere. Phys. Rev. Research, 4, 033051 (2022)

    2022

  47. [61]

    Ranfagni, P

    A. Ranfagni, P. Vezio, M. Calamai et al. Vectorial polaritons in the quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere. Nature Physics, 17, 1120–1124 (2021). 10

    2021

  48. [62]

    Seberson and F

    T. Seberson and F. Robicheaux. Distribution of laser shot-noise energy delivered to a levitated nanoparticle. Phys. Rev. A, 102, 033505 (2020)

    2020

  49. [63]

    Deplano, A

    Q. Deplano, A. Pontin, A. Ranfagni et al. Coulomb coupling between two nanospheres trapped in a bichromatic optical tweezer. Optica, 11, 1773 (2024)

    2024

  50. [64]

    Calamai, A

    M. Calamai, A. Ranfagni, and F. Marin. Transfer of a levitating nanoparticle between optical tweezers. AIP Advances, 11 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.